研究生: |
蘇曉蓉 Hsiao-Jung Su |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
臺灣公私立國民中學經營特性對學生成就的影響:政治與市場邏輯的檢證 Politics against Markets:School Sector, School Autonomy and Student Achievement in Taiwan |
指導教授: |
王麗雲
Wang, Li-Yun |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
教育政策與行政研究所 Graduate Institute of Educational Policy and Administration |
論文出版年: | 2008 |
畢業學年度: | 96 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 155 |
中文關鍵詞: | 公私立國民中學 、學校自主性 、學生成就 、臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫 |
英文關鍵詞: | private and pubic schools, school autonomy, student achievement, TEPS |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:231 下載:12 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究旨在瞭解學校自主性是否能解釋臺灣公私立國民中學學生成就的差異。過去研究顯示私立學校學生成績較佳,其中制度論觀點指出學校經營特性中的學校自主性高低是影響公私立學校學生成就差異的重要原因,如Chubb和Moe(1990)指出公立學校在政治邏輯運作下,受較多外部機構控制,學校自主性較低,對學生成就較不利,因而主張公立學校市場化,上述理論是否能適用臺灣的情形?臺灣公私立國民中學在地方政府辦理及監督的原則下,學校自主性有何差異?學校自主性與學生成就之間有何關聯?提昇學校在哪些方面的自主性對學生學習有利?皆為本研究關心的議題。
為回答上述問題,本研究以次級資料分析為主,訪談為輔。運用臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫第一波與第二波的教師、學生與家長的資料,分析臺灣公私立國民中學的學生成就差異、學校自主性差異,及學校自主性與學生成就之關係,並藉由訪談補充量化難以回答的變項運作機制。
以制度觀點的指標進行量化分析後,結果指出臺灣公私立國民中學有制度差異,但學校自主性與學生成就沒有關聯,可知制度論的解釋有限,臺灣升學文化脈絡或學校社會資本的運用可能是解釋學生成就差異的其他原因;亦可能是次級資料分析尚未能找出關鍵因素,如訪談指出彈性的學習時間與活動安排、自主的常規管理可能提昇學生成就。此外,若學校自主性高,卻未用於促進學生學習的目的,則無法彰顯學校自主性的正向效果。除了上述解釋,本研究最重要的發現是,臺灣私立國中在篩選學生上頗具自主性,雖然國外制度論研究中並未納入此一自主性,但是就臺灣而言,篩選學生的自主性才是解釋公私立國中學生成就差異的主要因素,且量化及訪談結果皆支持此一論點。最後,依據研究結論及討論,提出對教育主管機關、國民中學經營、未來研究取向與次級資料庫的建議。
The purpose of this study is to understand the differences in student achievement, school autonomy, and school organizational characteristics between public and private junior high schools, as well as the effects of school autonomy on student achievement. In order to address the questions mentioned above, this study analyzed secondary data using quantitative method. Interview was used as the complementary method.
Using the first-wave and the second-wave data of teachers, students and parents from Taiwan Education Panel Study, the findings show that there are organizational differences in school autonomy. However, it has no impact on student achievement, which is different from Chubb and Moe (1990)’s findings, implying that institutional theory is limited when explaining the differences in student achievement in Taiwan. The context of the culture or social capital may be other factors explaining the differences in student achievement. Other variables in the secondary data might need to be added. New Variables such as flexible studying time, flexible activity arrangements, or classroom discipline may explain better student achievement in Taiwan’s private schools. If the degree of school autonomy is high, but it is not used to achieve the goal of improving student studying, it can not manifest the positive effect of school autonomy.
Most importantly, student selection is part of school autonomy in Taiwan, and the more autonomy schools have in student selection, the higher the student achievement is. In other words, the autonomy of student selection can explain the differences in student achievement between public and private junior high schools. Based on the research finding, suggestions and discussions of findings are provided.
壹、中文部分
內政部戶政司(2008)。歷年人口總數、年增加、自然增加、出生、死亡數及其比率。2008年2月25日,取自:http://www.ris.gov.tw/ch4/static/yhs109600.xls
王融見(2001年,5月26日)。斗六景氣差私立學校學生流失,本學期由私校轉入公立學校學生增多。中國時報。
王麗雲(2000,5月)。家長學校選擇權的政治與社會意涵分析。論文發表於教育部主辦之「第三屆臺灣教育社會學論壇」,嘉義縣:南華大學。
王麗雲(2007)。地方教育治理模式分析。教育政策論壇,10(1): 189-228。
王麗雲、游錦雲(2005)。學童社經背景與暑期經驗對暑期學習成就進展影響之研究。教育研究集刊,51(4),1-41。
地方制度法(2005)。
朱敬一、戴華(1996)。國家在教育中的角色。行政院教育改革審議委員會。
李佩倫(2004)。影響國中學生基本學力測驗成績因素之探討。國立中興大學應用經濟學研究所博士論文,未出版,台中市。
李家宗(1997)。英美教育改革法案中市場導向之比較研究。國立暨南國際大學比較教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,南投市。
李復新、馬小梅(譯)(1999)。A. E. Meyer著。當代教育發展史:二十世紀教育發展回顧(The Development of Education in the Twentieth Century)。台北市:桂冠。
李鴻誠(2004年,4月13日)。彰縣/私校搶學生,溪州國中守護出擊。東森新聞報。2007年2月6日,取自http://www.ettoday.com/2004/04/13/123-1615539.htm
李咏吟、張新仁、潘慧玲、許殷宏(1998)。國民小學學校效能縱貫研究。教育研究資訊,6(3),1-25。
沈姍姍(1998)。自家長教育選擇權看教育機會均等。教育資料與研究,21,8-10。
私立學校法(2006)。
私立學校法施行細則(2000)。
吳素柔(2008年,5月27日)。嚴禁私立國中違規招生 教育部籲踴躍檢舉。中央社。
吳清山(1988)。國民小學管理模式與學校效能之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北市。
吳清山(1992)。學校效能研究。台北市:五南。
來安民(1999)。臺灣中學教育之演進。載於徐南號(主編),臺灣教育史(頁133-158)。台北市:師大書苑。
周志宏(2001)。私人興學自由與私立學校法制之研究。台北市:學林文化。
周愚文(1998)。鬆甚麼?綁甚麼?論私人興學。中等教育,49(2),25-36。
林玉体(1997)。西洋教育史。台北市:三民。
林玉体(譯)(1976)。J.S. Brubacher著。西洋中等教育的演進。中等教育,27(5),38-51。
林孟皇(2000)。家長之公立學校選擇權。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
林俊瑩(2006)。檢視個人與家庭因素、學校因素對學生學業成就的影響:以SEM與HLM分析我國國中教育階段機會均等及相關問題。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文,未出版,高雄市。
林淳華(2006年,5月25日)。中縣:私中挖角 資優生留不住。中國時報,C3。
徐仁輝(2006,4月)。財政收支劃分法修正案研究。國政研究報告,財金(研)095-004號。2006年12月17日,取自http://www.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/FM/095/FM-R-095-004.htm
秦夢群(2002)。市場機制或社會正義:教育卷政策走向之分析研究。教育政策論壇,5(2),25-42。
秦夢群(2004)。美國教育法與判例。台北市:高等教育。
高級中等以下學校教師評審委員會設置辦法(2001)。
國民教育法(2006)。
國民教育法施行細則(2004)。
張苙雲(2003年,7月)。專題報告:臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫的理論思考與抽樣設計。載於行政院國家科學委員會主辦之「2003臺灣與國際教育長期追蹤資料庫北部工作坊」論文集(頁8-26),台北市。
張苙雲(2006)。臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫:第一波(2001)、第二波(2003)資料使用手冊【2006.12.11版】。中央研究院調查研究專題中心【管理、釋出單位】。
張苙雲(2007)。臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫:第一波(2001)學生資料【現場使用版電子檔】、家長資料【現場使用版電子檔】、教師資料【現場使用版電子檔】、第二波(2003)學生資料【現場使用版電子檔】。中央研究院調查研究專題中心【管理、釋出單位】。現場使用版授權碼:TEPS2A003096
張蕎韻(2006)。家庭背景對家長選校決策及學生學習能力之影響。國立臺灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
強迫入學條例(2003)。
教育人員任用條例(2006)。
教育基本法(2005)。
教育經費編列與管理法(2000)。
教師法(2006)。
曹俊漢(2001年,3月25日)。楊梅:私校搶學生「卯足勁」,標榜嚴教與嚴管,高升學率是口碑。中國時報。
許添明(2003)。教育財政制度新論。台北市:高等教育。
陳亮君(2006)。臺灣地區高級中等學校之公私立別、地區、規模與教育資源對學業成就之影響。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
陳麗珠(2001)。「教育經費編列與管理法」之評析。國立高雄師範大學教育學系教育學刊,17,125-145。
楊巧玲(2003)。知識經濟/商品化教育/績效學校:90年代教育市場化的發展與挑戰。教育學刊,21,225-242。
廖宏彬(2001)。個人及群體層次因素對國中生學業成就影響的多層級分析。南華大學教育社會學研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
蓋浙生(2002)。教育經營與管理。台北:師大書苑。
劉春榮(1992)。國民小學組織結構、組織承諾與學校效能關係研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北市。
潘慧玲(1999)。學校效能研究領域的發展。教育研究集刊,43,77-102。
蔡百昌(2002)。家長選擇權與公私立學校經營特性──以雲嘉南五縣市為例。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
謝文全(2006)。比較教育行政。台北市:五南。
貳、西文部分
Alexander, K.L., & Pallas, A. (1985). School sector and cognitive performance: When is a little a little? Sociology of Education, 58, 115-128.
Arum, R. (1996). Do private schools force public schools to compete? American Sociological Review, 61, 29-46.
Benveniste, L., Benveniste, L., Carnoy, M., & Rothstein, R. (2003a). How different are public schools from private? In All Else Equal: Are Public and Private Schools Different?(pp176-192). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Benveniste, L., Benveniste, L., Carnoy, M., & Rothstein, R. (2003b). Are private and public schools organized differently? In All Else Equal: Are Public and Private Schools Different?(pp.48-70). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Braun, H., Jenkins, F., and Grigg, W. (2006). Comparing private schools and public schools using hierarchical linear modeling (NCES 2006–461). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Bryk, A.S., Lee,V.E.(1992). Is politics the problem and markets the answers? An essay review of Politics, Markets and American Schools. Economics of Education Review, 11(4), 439-451.
Bryk, A.S., Lee, V.E., & Holland, P.B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2005). No country left behind: International comparisons of student achievement tell U.S. educators where they must focus their efforts to create the schools the country needs. Issues in science and technology, 21(2), 69-75.
Chubb,J.E. & Moe,T. M. (1987). No school is an island:Politics, markets, and education. In William Lowe Boyd & Charles Taylor Kerchner (Eds.), The politics of excellence and choice in education (pp.131-141). New York:Falmer Press.
Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M. (1988). Politics, markets, and the organization of schools. The American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1965-1087.
Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, markets, and American schools. Washington, DC:Brookings.
Clack, G (ed.) (1997).Portrait of the USA. United States Information Agency.
Coe,R., & Fitz-Gibbon, C.T.(1998). School Effectiveness Research: Criticisms and Recommendations. Oxford Review of Education, 24(4) , 421-438.
Coleman, J., & Hoffer, T.(1987).Public and private high schools: The impact of
communities. New York: Basic.
Coleman, J.S., Hoffer, T, & Kilgore, S.(1982). High school achievement. New York:
Basic.
Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational
Leadership, 37(1), 15-24.
Engel, M.(2000).The struggle for control of public education : market ideology vs. democratic values. Philadelphia, PA : Temple University Press.
Erickson (1986). Choice and private schools: Dynamics of supply and demand. In Daniel C. Levy (Ed.) Private Education: Studies in Choice and Public Policy (pp. 82-109). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, M. (1982). The role of government in education. In Capitalism and freedom (pp.85-107). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goertz, M.E.(1999). The finance of American public education: Challenges of equity, adequacy , and efficiency. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy (pp.31-52). San Diego: Academic Press.
Greene, J. P, Forster, G., & Winters, M. A. (2003). Apples to apples: An evaluation of charter schools serving general student populations. New York: Manhattan Institute.
Harrison,M. (2005).Public problems, private solutions: School choice and its consequences. Cato Journal, 25(2),197-215.
Heckman, J.J.& Neal, D.(1996). Coleman’s contributions to education: Theory, Research styles and empirical research. In J. Clark (Ed.), James S. Coleman (pp.81-102). London; Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Hirschoff, Mary-Michelle Upson (1986). Public policy toward private schools: a focus on parental choice. In Daniel C. Levy (Ed.) Private Education: Studies in Choice and Public Policy (pp. 33-56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoffer, T. , Greeley, A.M, & Coleman, J.S.(1985).Achievement growth in public and catholic schools. Sociology of Education, 58, 74-97.
Kutner, M.A., Sherman, J.D., & Williams, M. F. (1986). Federal policies for private schools. In Daniel C. Levy (Ed.) Private Education: Studies in Choice and Public Policy (pp.57-81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lachs, J., & Lachs, S.M. (1989). Education and the power of the state: Reconceiving some problems and their solutions. In Neal. E. Devins (Ed.), Public values, private schools (pp.235-250). London; New York:Falmer Press.
Levin, H.M.(1989). Education as a public and private good. In Neal. E. Devins (Ed.), Public values, private schools (pp.215-232). London; New York:Falmer Press.
Lubienski, C. (2001). Redefining “public” education: Carter schools, common schools, and the rhetoric of reform. Teacher College Record, 103(4), 634-666.
Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2005). A new look at public and private schools student background and mathematics achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 86 (9), 696-699.
Luyten, H. (2003). The size of school effects compared to teacher effects: An overview of the research literature. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(1),31-51.
Mayer, F. (1966). Chapter XVIII: Horace Mann. In Mayer (Ed.), Great Ideas of Education, Vol.2: Road to Modern Education (pp.353-363). New Haven : College & University Press.
McDermott, K.A.(1999). Controlling public education : localism versus equity. Lawrence : University Press of Kansas.
McMurtry, J. (1991) Education and the Market Model. Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 25 (2), 209-217.
Meier, K. J., Polinard, L. ,& Wrinkle, R. D. (2000). Bureaucracy and Organizational Performance: Causality Arguments about Public Schools. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 590-602.
Novak(2006).Choice matters: What needs to change to make schools competitive? Policy, 22(1),23-27.
Peterson, P.E., & Llaudet, E. (2006, August). On the public-private school achievement debate. Paper prepared for the annual meetings of the American political science association, Philadelphia, PA.
Raudenbush, S. W. , & Bryk, A. S.(1986). A Hierarchical Model for Studying School Effects. Sociology of Education, 59, 1-17.
Rebell, M. A. (1989). Values inculcation and the schools: The need for a new Pierce compromise. In Neal. E. Devins (Ed.), Public values, private schools (pp.37-62). London; New York:Falmer Press.
Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C., Creemers, B., Scheerens, J., & Townsend, T. (2000). An introduction to school effectiveness research. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp.3-25). London; New York: Falmer Press.
Roosevelt, G. (2006).The triumph of the market and the decline of liberal education: Implications for civic life. Teachers College Record,108 (7), 1404-1423.
Salganik, L. H.& Karweit, N.(1982).Voluntarism and governance in education. Sociology of Education, 55, 153-161.
Scott, W.R., & Meyer,J.W. (1994). Environmental linkages and organizational complexity: Public and private schools. In W. Richard Scott & John W. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations──structural complexity and individualism (pp.137-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Smith, K.B.,& Meier, K. J. (1994). Politics, Bureaucrats, and Schools. Public Administration Review, 54(6), 551-558.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. (5th ed.).Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Talbert, J. (1988). Conditions of public and private school organizations and notions of effective schools. In Edward H. Haertel, Thomas James and Henry M. Levin (Eds.), Comparing public and private schools V1 (pp.161-188). New York: The Falmer Press.
Tooley, J. (1995). Markets or democracy for education? A reply to Stewart Ranson. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(1), 21-34.
Tweedie, J., Riley, D.D., Chubb, J.E. , & Moe, T.M. (1990). Should market forces control educational decision making? The American Political Science Review, 84(2), 549-567.
Wong, K. K. (1999). Political institutions and educational policy. In Gregory J. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy (pp. 298-325). San Diego: Academic Press.
Woessmann, L.(2001).Why Students in Some Countries Do Better: International Evidence on the Importance of Education Policy. Education Matters, 1(2),67-74.
Woessmann, L. (2003). Schooling Resources, Educational Institutions and Student Performance the International Evidence. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65(2), 117-170.